 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sipes v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety9/16/1997
s to exercise his opportunity to be heard at the administrative level, and DPS has issued an order sustaining the revocation based upon evidence presented by DPS at the scheduled hearing, the licensee has exhausted the available administrative remedies. However, he has done so at his peril. If the licensee then elects to challenge the revocation order in district court, the court must act as an appellate tribunal limited to canvassing the evidence actually presented at the administrative level. The district court exercising appellate jurisdiction to hear the licensee's petition de novo may not conduct a trial de novo, but may re-examine and weigh the evidence to determine whether DPS has met its burden of proof but must limit its examination to the evidence presented below. No additional evidence may be presented. For the licensee to prevail, he must prove that the evidence adduced at the administrative level is facially deficient to sustain the order. See, Chase v. State ex rel. Dept. of Pub. Safety, 1990 OK at , 795 P.2d at 1050 (a "patent deficiency in the statutorily required DPS material" is one "apparent on the face of the administrative proceedings").
IV
We therefore hold the district court correctly exercised jurisdiction, but erred in its Conclusions that DPS "fail to establish a prima facie case"; and that "he Department's revocation/suspension should be vacated." The order is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the matter is remanded to permit Sipes the opportunity to prove facial irregularity in the evidence presented at the administrative level.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|